|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Oct 10, 2016 18:21:02 GMT -5
And here comes the damaging inning, not good.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Oct 10, 2016 18:16:47 GMT -5
Everything's just going the Indians way, it is like a freight train.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Oct 10, 2016 18:09:42 GMT -5
This is just awful offense at the current moment.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Oct 10, 2016 17:54:10 GMT -5
Damn just can't catch any breaks, don't like the feeling of this.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Oct 10, 2016 17:50:48 GMT -5
Very nice X!
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Oct 10, 2016 17:30:55 GMT -5
Eventually the balls have to start falling in, right? Maybe next year?
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Oct 10, 2016 17:29:30 GMT -5
Welp great start for the offense.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Oct 6, 2016 22:19:28 GMT -5
Xander looks completely lost. Ridiculously. I think about dropping him to 9th tomorrow. I would give him a day off.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Oct 6, 2016 22:16:16 GMT -5
Woof
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Oct 6, 2016 21:39:41 GMT -5
And people said "the way a team plays after they clinch isn't indicative of much" It really isn't. The Indians were hot a couple years ago coming into the playoffs and lost in the first round. It is somewhat flukey unfortunately but that is what makes it so intense.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Oct 6, 2016 21:34:21 GMT -5
Well this is going how about everyone pictured us faring against Miller.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Oct 6, 2016 21:22:00 GMT -5
Would be shocked if Miller doesn't come out for another inning. Opportunities are getting less...
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Oct 2, 2016 13:37:21 GMT -5
Bringing Pomeranz from the NL West to the AL East and who had not pitched past 86 innings in the previous three seasons already carried extreme risk. Too much risk imo to give up one of the top pitching prospects. But then when you find out that there's even more risk because you have been withheld medical information, if they offer you a chance to get out of that deal, you have to take it. I know that Pomeranz probably helped us to win about 3 or 4 more games than, say a Henry Owens. But I really hope we didn't give up Espinoza for four wins in one year. Is it worth it for a world series ring? It is too early to tell if that will be the case but that 3 or 4 games might prove to be the difference in the play-in game/not making the playoffs to making the playoffs with a guaranteed shot at the world series. I still don't like the trade but if his starts ensured us the playoffs and we wind up winning it all it was worth it IMO.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Jul 29, 2016 11:06:38 GMT -5
No tweet yet, but Morosi supposedly said the Sox are pushing for Lucroy on MLB Network.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Jul 14, 2016 21:21:40 GMT -5
Rental prices were asking for the same as non rentals. I think it goes back to his philosophy of over paying to get a guy as opposed to being left at the altar. He did it with the Kimbrel deal where he said that was the price for a reliever so he bit and it seems like the same type of deal here. Is Billy Beane going to trade Rich Hill two and a half weeks before the deadline for what he would get at the deadline? Absolutely not he would want to make sure he is winning the trade substantially. DD is very aggressive and he is known for that. Doesn't justify this deal anymore and is a very big change from guys like Cherington and Epstein being extremely diligent and missing out on deals because of it which I think jmei has mentioned before.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Apr 24, 2016 21:34:34 GMT -5
Also if Barnes can do what he is doing now well, that is pretty damn useful. Is this really any different than what has happened before? A lot of these pitches are straight as an arrow and elevated guys are just missing them. On any given night these fly balls could be going much longer in distance.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Apr 18, 2016 12:34:36 GMT -5
Brutal way to lose a game.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Apr 18, 2016 12:28:57 GMT -5
Well hopefully Kimbrel isn't wild.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Dec 2, 2015 8:50:44 GMT -5
I thought about this a little more-- here's the simplified version of the above. You're approaching it from the POV of "how likely is it that he's worth $127m in years 4-7?" That's the wrong question to ask-- it should be instead "considering that he's pitched well enough to opt out, how likely is it that he's worth $127m in years 4-7?" The answer to the latter question seems more likely than not, and perhaps significantly more likely than not. I disagree. When pitchers lose it they lose it quick. Look at Halladay/Sabathia as recent examples (Sabathia can be attributed to physique to a certain degree). Price's plan of attack relies heavily on being able to come in on right handers with a hard fastball. What happens if that 95 miles per hour drops a shade and he loses that ability (Which isn't that far fetched in those later years to lose that in an instant) and you are now at the scenario where it is much more likely he isn't worth $30M a year.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Dec 2, 2015 8:46:22 GMT -5
Can you see Boston fans if our GM let Price walk as a free agent while he was still pitching well? It's the exact same dynamic, except that, sans opt-out, if you think he's going to be worth 4/$127m for his age 34-37 seasons, you have the option of keeping him for that much. I think it is significantly more probable that a GM (yes even Dombrowski) will let Price walk as a free agent while he was still pitching well rather than trade him after year three. Now the outlined scenario is nowhere near 100% certain but nothing we are discussing is. The Red Sox are in a bit of a unique position where the youngest talent in your pitching crop lies in the lower minor with one particular pitcher looking tremendous and very promising. Let's say in three years you have Eduardo Rodriguez, Anderson Espinoza and Michael Kopech looking promising and more or less what we think of them as (Espinoza capable of being a top of the rotation type guy, Rodriguez a very good #2 and Kopech solidifying the #3) in addition to Brian Johnson or Henry Owens looking okay as one of the back end guys. Wouldn't it be much more enticing as a GM to hold onto Price rather than trade him at his peak. Yes in that scenario it makes sense you just never see that occur as a GM. Now the flipside is if he is a free agent why would you be hard pressed to re-sign him if he is good? Yes I know Dombrowski did so for Verlander and Cabrera but he didn't have near the young talent the Red Sox have and by all accounts Dombrowski is cognizant of that fact and has a list of guys he will be unlikely to move unless he is winning the trade. However in the scenario above he will have options unlike being at the mercy of a free agent and having to give big time money for the backside of those years. That is IMO where this structure can intentionally aid the Sox. Now if that is the thought who knows and the downside is if the prospects woefully flame out then we are going to be in a situation where we have to pay a significant amount of money to a pitcher. The good thing is if he opts out, not a slam dunk at all, the market is pretty fresh of guys and we aren't only talking about a 33 year old David Price. But alas like mentioned above we can argue the semantics round and round as no one party is going to flip the other at this juncture.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Dec 1, 2015 20:39:23 GMT -5
No because the two have nothing to do with one another and I don't understand why people think they do. They aren't directly relatable but I think it is foolish to say they have nothing to do with each other. Like it or not Dombrowski was very forthcoming about the entire process. He stated from the start the team had three objectives and he has gotten those done by December 1st. Based on piecemeal news that has come together, Dombrowski tried the trade market. However contrary to the belief on this board he valued young talent tremendously and realized very quickly the price was too high. He wasn't going to trade a Bogaerts/Betts/Swihart nor did he want to overpay with the top shelf of his farm system. He moved quickly wanted to control a top flight bullpen arm and yes he overpaid but at that point I am sure he realized he was getting either Price or Greinke. It seems like he added what he did of the 'surplus' to avoid a bidding war. This is different from Sox's prior dealings and it remains to be seen if being strong in your convictions and getting what you want (even if you pay a higher price) is worth it. I don't think it has nothing to do as it seems pretty clear Dombrowski had a plan and acted quickly to ensure it came together. That isn't random.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Dec 1, 2015 20:31:51 GMT -5
Remember, my earlier point is just that the opt-out is undoubtedly a negative for the team. I do not have to assume that the Red Sox will re-sign Price to a longer deal. My references to the Yankees having done so with Rodriguez and Sabathia are just to show that they would have preferred that those players did not opt out. If Price pitches well and opts out, the Red Sox would almost certain prefer that he were still under contract for 4/$127m, which means the scenario that so many are giddy about (that he's dominant for three years and then opts out and leaves) is still worse than the scenario where he signed a straight 7/$217m contract. I am not sure on that. Obviously the Yankees did so with Sabathia and Rodriguez but they only wished they didn't opt out as they wouldn't have made the mistake of re-signing them. What isn't to say in three years E-Rod progresses into a top of the line rotation guy, Owens is a solid middle of the rotation guy, same with Johnson and Espinoza looks lights out. It seems like we are holding onto those guys and Dombrowski is hesitant to give those guys up. Isn't it feasible the team says hey we got a tremendous short term bridge with one of the best pitchers in the game for three years. Now he opts out and we have a bunch of loaded talent and we don't have to pay a high price and re-allocate that money elsewhere while someone overpays to get the last of Price's may be good years. Wouldn't the team look pretty brilliant in that scenario? I mean if the Yankees did that with Rodriguez/Sabathia the first time around they would come out smelling like roses. Yes the team absorbs more risk but they also allow themselves to re-evaluate where they are at in three years and have the option not to play Russian roulette one more time.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 14, 2015 16:46:56 GMT -5
And if the price would have cost us a bit more for Chapman I am taking the deal we just made. Seems pretty easy there.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 14, 2015 15:55:59 GMT -5
Hmm, I'd love too see which hypothetical top of the line starter we could have gotten for this package that everyone is clamoring about? Please enlighten the rest of the board with some potential examples of who we could have gotten for our prospects? I believe it has been said some thing that Salazar could have been had or Quintana. I don't buy it but that is the expectation.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 14, 2015 12:18:52 GMT -5
What if Guerra continues to progress offensively and starts looking more like Ian Desmond with better defense? What if Margot taps into more of his power and looks more like Carlos Gomez? By definition, for any median projection, there should be a 50% chance that they perform better than that and a 50% chance that they perform worse than that. You can't just look at the downside and ignore the upside. Even if you thought Margot and Guerra were sell-high candidates (in other words, if you were lower on them than the market/the publicly-available rankings were), they should have been able to shop them around and get more than just Kimbrel, whether that was from the Padres or elsewhere. And I looked at all downside for any scenario, it wasn't like I looked just at the downside of both of those players. You are nitpicking and taking something way out of context and I do agree those guys have some nice upside that is the value in which they had. The upside of going the route we are currently going is having a top end relief pitcher for the backside of the bullpen, what if we get a Cueto/Price and if guys presently on the roster rebound from what were down years and we win a World Series? There are positives and negatives in each of the three scenarios that I laid out. There isn't just upside to holding onto the prospects so you lose me a bit there. To your second part it goes to Dombrowski's line of attack. I am in the camp that the prospects we dealt were not going to get us close to a top end starter like many thought here. I don't think teams would be dealing those type of guys unless they were getting a top end guy back with a higher probability of reaching a ceiling. He looked at the bullpen market on the FA and agreed with most that it is underwhelming. So where are you looking to get a better return on your investment? Chapman certainly isn't given one year of control. I am guessing Dombrowski tried diligently surrounding those guys for Gray and that failed so that is out. Maybe a guy like Giles but I would envision you have to trade at least a Moncada/Espinoza/Devers to get him although maybe you give up less in quantity you give up more in useful quality. I just fail to see where the immediate oh we could have gotten "X" player for this package. We can easily point to outside valuation but I fail to see where a fit was and that is one half of the trade discussion. If the valuation inside of Fenway was these guys were sell high candidates you get the most value you can with helping your roster long term. The argument would be maybe you get creative and make a move to get more value and then flip that to get better value but don't you run the risk of losing the guy you want? It isn't like those dominoes are quick to fall in some cases. Again to Chris's point I think we overpaid but to Kelly's point I think we also got the guy the FO wanted for better or worse.
|
|